Jump to content

Would you log this?


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

 

What's so draconian about requiring to signature the log sheet? Except the cases, where the logbook is full/broken/missing (so the owner fault)...

 

On a handful of occasions, I've had cache owners tell me to go ahead and log a cache I DNF'ed on.

 

While I chose not to, I don't see why it's anyone else's business and I certainly wouldn't post a public call-out at someone else for doing so.

Link to comment

 

On a handful of occasions, I've had cache owners tell me to go ahead and log a cache I DNF'ed on.

 

While I chose not to, I don't see why it's anyone else's business and I certainly wouldn't post a public call-out at someone else for doing so.

 

You mean long multis, or difficult mysteries, when you've only failed in finding the final container, but you were on place?

 

Well, yeah, I agree, it's a bit borderline. Some people would do that, some not (whether they think, for example, that the crucial part of the multi is the trail or the final).

 

But the example that started the discussion was about logging the cache when you were not on the final coordinates nor nearby. Therefore such negative reaction.

Link to comment

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

I guess I am more puritanical than you. For my traditional caches, I expect people to actually find the container. You might not. Other cache owners might not. But Groundspeak does. They consider photo-logging a traditional cache to be converting that cache into a virtual cache, which no longer is allowed. They have archived traditional caches where owners have continued to allow photo logging.

 

I still have the pictures and memories of doing everything that the cache owner intended: "Take a walk on the bridge and enjoy the breathtaking view of Marina Bay."

Didn't you recently note that just because the owner wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything?" What if the cache owner instead had written, "Sit on your couch and look at these breathtaking photos of Marina Bay that I've uploaded, then log your find." Would you log such a cache without visiting the location? I believe going to the location and finding the traditional cache container are rather fundamental aspects of geocaching.

 

I've got some great DNF pictures and memories as well. Not finding a cache doesn't take any of that away. You even can write a DNF log to share those memories and photos.

Link to comment

 

On a handful of occasions, I've had cache owners tell me to go ahead and log a cache I DNF'ed on.

 

While I chose not to, I don't see why it's anyone else's business and I certainly wouldn't post a public call-out at someone else for doing so.

 

You mean long multis, or difficult mysteries, when you've only failed in finding the final container, but you were on place?

 

Well, yeah, I agree, it's a bit borderline. Some people would do that, some not (whether they think, for example, that the crucial part of the multi is the trail or the final).

 

But the example that started the discussion was about logging the cache when you were not on the final coordinates nor nearby. Therefore such negative reaction.

 

The ones I can remember were caches away from home that were actually missing, and the owners felt bad that I had gone a long way to come up empty-handed. The offer is nice, but I think I've always declined.

 

There's nothing "borderline" here. There is no reason to react negatively to someone else's decision in the matter. It's between cacher and cache owner.

Link to comment

Have seen 2 or 3 such caches before. I have not logged anything on the accompanying country ones but the ones that are in my area, I have logged them with doing the required buddying from another country and I have logged one just being told the final coordinates after failing to find someone in that other country or state to buddy up with. I figured asking one or two people was enough and did not want to hassle too many. As long as I log the cache in question that I have personally signed, its fine by me.

Link to comment

There is a cache in my area like this, which I haven't yet done but probably will someday. It's actually two separate multicaches, with cache A in my area and cache B far away. The idea is that I find stage one of cache A and get the final coords for cache B, while someone else finds stage one of cache B and gets the final coords of cache A and we swap coords so I can log a find on cache A and the other person logs a find on cache B. I have no issues with that, and if I were ever in the area of cache B I would log a find on that one as well (because they are two separate caches). But if they were two parts of the same cache, I would only log it once (although I might still at least visit the second part if I had the chance and post a note just for the fun of it).

 

Regarding the guidelines for logging a cache, arguments can be made whether the sun is the moon or the moon is the sun, but the gist of it is that an online "Found" is generally expected to be paired with (and usually preceded by) a signed physical log. That isn't so complicated that the average person will unintentionally misinterpret it.

Link to comment

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

And you're saying that logging a cache that was created to bring someone to a specific location, going to Singapore where the cache was hidden, finding the exact spot where the cache was hidden, and doing everything that the cache owner intended except write on a piece of paper, is the same as posting a found it log for a cache in a country you've never visited? I will gladly delete my found it log on that cache if it makes you feel better but frankly I don't see how it's any of your business.

No, I'm not saying they are exactly the same. I'm saying that in neither case was the cache actually found. In neither case would I even think about logging it as being found, even if the CO said it was okay to do so. Just because the CO wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything."

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

I just deleted my found it log on the cache in Singapore. Happy now? My find count, after over 7 years playing the game, went down from 1215 finds to 1214 finds. You have nearly 10x that many after only 5 years so obviously number are more important to you. As it turned out, at 9415 miles it was also the furthest find from home. Now it's a cache a few blocks away that oddly enough displays as 9408 miles from home. I still have the pictures and memories of doing everything that the cache owner intended: " Take a walk on the bridge and enjoy the breathtaking view of Marina Bay."

I think I know which cache that is - I DNF that the first time as well. When I went back 2 years later, it was replaced.

 

I don't have any issue with anyone logging a find in that situation. I think he questions (maybe I'm wrong) your choice of words : I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. I don't think being puritanical has anything to do with it. It's more a matter of language and word choices.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

I've got some great DNF pictures and memories as well. Not finding a cache doesn't take any of that away. You even can write a DNF log to share those memories and photos.

A bit off topic : there's a local cacher who posts a photo with every DNF log he posts. That way there's an easy way to see almost all of his DNF logs - by going to his gallery.

 

OK, maybe not ALL his DNF logs - he has over 3500 of them.

Link to comment

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

I guess I am more puritanical than you. For my traditional caches, I expect people to actually find the container. You might not. Other cache owners might not. But Groundspeak does. They consider photo-logging a traditional cache to be converting that cache into a virtual cache, which no longer is allowed. They have archived traditional caches where owners have continued to allow photo logging.

I have seen that happen when a CO allowed photo logs over a long period of time, essentially to avoid doing maintenance on the cache. That was not the case for the cache in Singapore. The CO recognized that most of the people finding the cache were tourists that probably would not get the opportunity to look for it again, and as a courtesy to those that had the unfortunate experience of looking for it when it was temporarily missing, allowed an alternate form of proof that they visited the location. It's D1 cache with an explicit hint for where it's hidden. Groundspeak says that an online found it log may be posted if the physical log sheet has been found. It does not say that the physical log must be signed before an online found it log can be posted.

 

 

I still have the pictures and memories of doing everything that the cache owner intended: "Take a walk on the bridge and enjoy the breathtaking view of Marina Bay."

Didn't you recently note that just because the owner wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything?" What if the cache owner instead had written, "Sit on your couch and look at these breathtaking photos of Marina Bay that I've uploaded, then log your find." Would you log such a cache without visiting the location? I believe going to the location and finding the traditional cache container are rather fundamental aspects of geocaching.

 

I've got some great DNF pictures and memories as well. Not finding a cache doesn't take any of that away. You even can write a DNF log to share those memories and photos.

 

As I said, I deleted the found it log. Now you want me to go back and post a DNF log? I visited the location in 2012 and there have been hundreds of logs posted since then so nobody is going to notice a DNF log. Why do you insist that I should play the game exactly the way you do and call me out on it when, for one cache out of 1215 finds I didn't follow *your* rules.

 

 

Link to comment

No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Weren't you the fellow who "found" a missing cache by photo-logging the location...because the CO said it was okay?

And you're saying that logging a cache that was created to bring someone to a specific location, going to Singapore where the cache was hidden, finding the exact spot where the cache was hidden, and doing everything that the cache owner intended except write on a piece of paper, is the same as posting a found it log for a cache in a country you've never visited? I will gladly delete my found it log on that cache if it makes you feel better but frankly I don't see how it's any of your business.

No, I'm not saying they are exactly the same. I'm saying that in neither case was the cache actually found. In neither case would I even think about logging it as being found, even if the CO said it was okay to do so. Just because the CO wouldn't delete my log "doesn't change anything."

 

Okay, so I am not so puritanical about what constitutes a find as you are. Not only are those caches not exactly the same, the only thing that they have in common is that the CO is not draconian about requiring a signature on the log sheet in order to log it as a find.

 

I just deleted my found it log on the cache in Singapore. Happy now? My find count, after over 7 years playing the game, went down from 1215 finds to 1214 finds. You have nearly 10x that many after only 5 years so obviously number are more important to you. As it turned out, at 9415 miles it was also the furthest find from home. Now it's a cache a few blocks away that oddly enough displays as 9408 miles from home. I still have the pictures and memories of doing everything that the cache owner intended: " Take a walk on the bridge and enjoy the breathtaking view of Marina Bay."

I think I know which cache that is - I DNF that the first time as well. When I went back 2 years later, it was replaced.

 

I don't have any issue with anyone logging a find in that situation. I think he questions (maybe I'm wrong) your choice of words : I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. I don't think being puritanical has anything to do with it. It's more a matter of language and word choices.

 

Yes, I saw that you posted a found it log. It looks like you found 70+ caches there so you were probably in Singapore much longer than I was. I stayed overnight in a hotel near the airport one night and was able to spend a few hours caching the next before getting on my next flight. I found a couple of other caches (and DNFd one) near the hotel before I went downtown. If someone could come up with a definition for "find the cache" that everyone agrees with we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Link to comment

Groundspeak says that an online found it log may be posted if the physical log sheet has been found. It does not say that the physical log must be signed before an online found it log can be posted.

Did you find the physical log? Or did you merely photo-log the location for a missing cache and missing physical log? Traditional caches aren't virtual caches. And I, personally, would never treat them as such.

 

I've got some great DNF pictures and memories as well. Not finding a cache doesn't take any of that away. You even can write a DNF log to share those memories and photos.

As I said, I deleted the found it log. Now you want me to go back and post a DNF log?

I never asked you to delete your "Found it" log, and I never asked you to post a DNF log. I merely pointed out that, if you wish, you can log those memories and photos even if you don't find the cache. You certainly don't have to.

 

Why do you insist that I should play the game exactly the way you do and call me out on it when, for one cache out of 1215 finds I didn't follow *your* rules.

When have I ever insisted that you or anyone else should play the game exactly the way I do? I called you out on your hypocrisy for saying a CO not deleting a log "doesn't change anything" when that's the excuse you relied upon yourself.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Yes, I saw that you posted a found it log. It looks like you found 70+ caches there so you were probably in Singapore much longer than I was. I stayed overnight in a hotel near the airport one night and was able to spend a few hours caching the next before getting on my next flight. I found a couple of other caches (and DNFd one) near the hotel before I went downtown. If someone could come up with a definition for "find the cache" that everyone agrees with we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I've visited Singapore multiple times. If you want one even farther than the Marina Bay caches the next time you're in Singapore, try Labrador Park. There's probably some even slightly farther away but I haven't found them, and Labrador Park is an interesting place to visit with some WW II fortifications. Bring mosquito repellent.

 

By "find the cache" I take it to mean that someone has found the physical container. I don't take that as absolute condition for logging a cache as found. You were there, you searched for it, the CO confirmed that it is missing and allowed you to log it as found. It's between you and the CO.

 

I think all geocachers can agree on all the exact situations where "found it" can be logged on a geocache when there is one remaining person playing the game.

Link to comment

As I said, I deleted the found it log. Now you want me to go back and post a DNF log? I visited the location in 2012 and there have been hundreds of logs posted since then so nobody is going to notice a DNF log. Why do you insist that I should play the game exactly the way you do and call me out on it when, for one cache out of 1215 finds I didn't follow *your* rules.

Hey, relax, I think there's a lot of miscommunication going on here. Here's a photo to hopefully bring back some memories of caching in Marina Bay.

 

3a0548d5-2f0a-4b76-aa3c-9876d69ad560_l.jpg

Link to comment

Yes, I saw that you posted a found it log. It looks like you found 70+ caches there so you were probably in Singapore much longer than I was. I stayed overnight in a hotel near the airport one night and was able to spend a few hours caching the next before getting on my next flight. I found a couple of other caches (and DNFd one) near the hotel before I went downtown. If someone could come up with a definition for "find the cache" that everyone agrees with we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I've visited Singapore multiple times. If you want one even farther than the Marina Bay caches the next time you're in Singapore, try Labrador Park. There's probably some even slightly farther away but I haven't found them, and Labrador Park is an interesting place to visit with some WW II fortifications. Bring mosquito repellent.

 

I was only there once and the only reason was because it was the most economical layover city to Kuching, Malaysia and I schedule in an overnight layover on the way home. I don't know that I'll ever have the opportunity to visit again but I thought the same thing when I went to Ethiopia and wasn't able to find a cache (there was only 1 in the city at the time) but I've been back there twice. I debated on whether to take the ferry over to Pulau Ubin (the ferry was across the road from my hotel) or take the train downtown to see the city. After avoiding mosquitoes in Malaysia (I know someone that got Dengue fever there a few months earlier) , and reading the cache logs for some of the caches I opted to go downtown instead where I was almost struck by lightning.

 

 

By "find the cache" I take it to mean that someone has found the physical container. I don't take that as absolute condition for logging a cache as found. You were there, you searched for it, the CO confirmed that it is missing and allowed you to log it as found. It's between you and the CO.

 

I think all geocachers can agree on all the exact situations where "found it" can be logged on a geocache when there is one remaining person playing the game.

 

 

Link to comment

As I said, I deleted the found it log. Now you want me to go back and post a DNF log? I visited the location in 2012 and there have been hundreds of logs posted since then so nobody is going to notice a DNF log. Why do you insist that I should play the game exactly the way you do and call me out on it when, for one cache out of 1215 finds I didn't follow *your* rules.

Hey, relax, I think there's a lot of miscommunication going on here. Here's a photo to hopefully bring back some memories of caching in Marina Bay.

 

3a0548d5-2f0a-4b76-aa3c-9876d69ad560_l.jpg

 

I would have liked to have been there at night. Maybe this looks familiar.

 

55UgL6F.jpg

 

Link to comment

I debated on whether to take the ferry over to Pulau Ubin (the ferry was across the road from my hotel) or take the train downtown to see the city. After avoiding mosquitoes in Malaysia (I know someone that got Dengue fever there a few months earlier) , and reading the cache logs for some of the caches I opted to go downtown instead where I was almost struck by lightning.

How did you manage to almost get struck by lightning downtown with all the tall buildings? I thought the biggest risk in Singapore by an American visitor is getting run over by a car.

 

My last trip there, I read in the logs of the caches I found that a geocacher (.K.B.) walked from the airport to downtown during his 10 hour layover. Now that's dedication! I did a lot of the same caches as he did, but over 5 or 6 days :)

Link to comment

I called you out on your hypocrisy for saying a CO not deleting a log "doesn't change anything" when that's the excuse you relied upon yourself.

Based on the above, it appears that you consider all scenarios where a container is missing equal. Personally, I see a distinction between logging a find on a missing cache and hoping the CO doesn't delete your log, and logging a find on a missing cache at the invitation of the CO. I believe NYPC sees it this way too, which explains why he logged that Singapore cache. As narcissa put it:

There is no reason to react negatively to someone else's decision in the matter. It's between cacher and cache owner.

...which isn't far off of the oft-quoted Jeremy statement:

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

I think all geocachers can agree on all the exact situations where "found it" can be logged on a geocache when there is one remaining person playing the game.

Nope, if there was only one person left, they'd be logging finds on their own caches, and that just wouldn't do! :laughing:

 

 

BTW, I'd like to propose that the term "Jeremy's Law" be coined as a geocaching term similar to Godwin's Law.

Jeremy's Law
As an online discussion about the logging of finds grows longer, the probability of the Jeremy knicker-twist statement being quoted approaches 1.

:laughing:

Link to comment

When have I ever insisted that you or anyone else should play the game exactly the way I do? I called you out on your hypocrisy for saying a CO not deleting a log "doesn't change anything" when that's the excuse you relied upon yourself.

 

How is it hypocrisy for a person to do something in one situation, and a different thing in a second, slightly different situation, all the while not asking or expecting others to do anything in either situation?

Link to comment

I would have liked to have been there at night. Maybe this looks familiar.

I was up there one of the evenings with my daughter. If you go, definitely go there just before sunset. I'd have posted photos but I don't seem to have any of them online.

 

Anyway, to bring this back on topic, there's one cache in Paris that requires cooperation from a cacher in one of a number of countries. One of them is Singapore, and I happened to be in Singapore when a friend was in Paris, so I collected the information for him. The cache is http://coord.info/GC2PANX - I've actually been to 4 of the 7 places. Would I log it? It's up to me. Should you log it? Your own business, and it doesn't bother me one way or another.

Link to comment

I called you out on your hypocrisy for saying a CO not deleting a log "doesn't change anything" when that's the excuse you relied upon yourself.

Based on the above, it appears that you consider all scenarios where a container is missing equal. Personally, I see a distinction between logging a find on a missing cache and hoping the CO doesn't delete your log, and logging a find on a missing cache at the invitation of the CO.

For me, personally, I would not log a find on a missing traditional regardless of whether the CO invited me to do so. As I noted earlier, traditionals are not virtuals and I'd never treat them as such.

 

I believe NYPC sees it this way too, which explains why he logged that Singapore cache.

Yes, he justified his Singapore "find" by noting that the CO said it was okay to log a find. Yet, in the multi-cache scenario, he said, "No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a 'Found It' log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything." That is the hypocrisy to which I was referring.

 

As narcissa put it:

There is no reason to react negatively to someone else's decision in the matter. It's between cacher and cache owner.

Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

 

...which isn't far off of the oft-quoted Jeremy statement:

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

Sometime, you should ask Jeremy about his opinion on "pocket caches." Ask Groundspeak why they archive webcams that continue to allow "selfie" photos, archive traditional caches that continue to allow photo-log finds for missing caches, archive virtual caches where owners continue to allow couch-potato logs, and archive caches that continue to be taken to events.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

The key word here being "personally." No need to comment on, or even notice, someone else's logging decisions.

It wasn't NYPC's logging decision I was commenting on; it was his hypocrisy. But I've already explained that three times.

Link to comment

I believe NYPC sees it this way too, which explains why he logged that Singapore cache.

Yes, he justified his Singapore "find" by noting that the CO said it was okay to log a find. Yet, in the multi-cache scenario, he said, "No. I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a 'Found It' log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything." That is the hypocrisy to which I was referring.

My point was that you feel it's hypocrisy because you see no difference between the two scenarios. NYPC and myself see a difference, and therefore don't consider there to be any hypocrisy.

 

Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder...

Link to comment

I debated on whether to take the ferry over to Pulau Ubin (the ferry was across the road from my hotel) or take the train downtown to see the city. After avoiding mosquitoes in Malaysia (I know someone that got Dengue fever there a few months earlier) , and reading the cache logs for some of the caches I opted to go downtown instead where I was almost struck by lightning.

How did you manage to almost get struck by lightning downtown with all the tall buildings? I thought the biggest risk in Singapore by an American visitor is getting run over by a car.

I was walking along the promenade from that infamous cache (and taking some photos of the Merlion) towards the theatre when I heard/felt a crackle in the air immediately followed by a very loud bang. It was behind me so I didn't actually see where the lightning struck but it felt really close. The weird thing was, it has a hot humid day and there were some dark clouds in the distance but I didn't see or hear any other lightning strikes all day. This occurred *after* "finding" the escalade cache so maybe it was a geo-god trying to tell me that I shouldn't post a found it log.

 

I was there just before the SIngapore formula 1 grand prix race which takes place every year on the downtown streets and fences had been erected along many of the streets. Some of the streets were already closed down so I was able to walk down the middle of some of them without worrying about getting run over.

 

I found the biggest risk was going broke from having a couple of beers with dinner. The price of alcohol in that country is astronomical.

 

 

My last trip there, I read in the logs of the caches I found that a geocacher (.K.B.) walked from the airport to downtown during his 10 hour layover. Now that's dedication! I did a lot of the same caches as he did, but over 5 or 6 days :)

 

I assume that he took the train back. That's quite a distance and about a half an hour ride by train on a pretty fast train.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

I was walking along the promenade from that infamous cache (and taking some photos of the Merlion) towards the theatre when I heard/felt a crackle in the air immediately followed by a very loud bang. It was behind me so I didn't actually see where the lightning struck but it felt really close. The weird thing was, it has a hot humid day and there were some dark clouds in the distance but I didn't see or hear any other lightning strikes all day. This occurred *after* "finding" the escalade cache so maybe it was a geo-god trying to tell me that I shouldn't post a found it log.

 

That was the first thought that occurred to me when reading this :)

 

I found the biggest risk was going broke from having a couple of beers with dinner. The price of alcohol in that country is astronomical.

 

I don't recall what's the price exactly, but I think the price of a can of beer in the supermarket is about triple what it is here. I can get a can of Tiger beer (brewed in Singapore) for less in the supermarket here compared to Singapore...

 

I assume that he took the train back. That's quite a distance and about a half an hour ride by train on a pretty fast train.

 

Yeah, he did. Walking both ways would not have been fun in that weather.

 

You reminded me that I did not upload any photo for that cache, so I remedied that.

Link to comment

Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

The key word here being "personally." No need to comment on, or even notice, someone else's logging decisions.

It wasn't NYPC's logging decision I was commenting on; it was his hypocrisy. But I've already explained that three times.

 

You haven't explained how it could possibly be hypocrisy. There are two different scenarios, he made two different decisions.

 

In neither case is he asking or expecting anybody else to make the same decisions. That's the crucial element in hypocrisy - expecting people to do one thing, but not living up to that standard yourself. That is not what is happening here.

Link to comment

Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

The key word here being "personally." No need to comment on, or even notice, someone else's logging decisions.

It wasn't NYPC's logging decision I was commenting on; it was his hypocrisy. But I've already explained that three times.

You haven't explained how it could possibly be hypocrisy. There are two different scenarios, he made two different decisions.

 

In neither case is he asking or expecting anybody else to make the same decisions. That's the crucial element in hypocrisy - expecting people to do one thing, but not living up to that standard yourself. That is not what is happening here.

As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.

 

Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

 

Hypocrisy: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

 

Hypocrisy: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

 

NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.

 

But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.

 

Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.

 

Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

 

Hypocrisy - "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

 

Hypocrisy - "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

 

NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.

 

But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.

 

Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.

 

None of your cherry-picked, incomplete web dictionary definitions apply here. There is no "belief" here. He made two decisions in two different scenarios - he didn't write a geocaching manifesto.

 

What is most alarming about this is the pointless note-taking and vicious call-outs over something that is a personal, case-by-case decision and has no impact on anybody else. Our individual standards for our own geocaching decisions are nuanced and personal.

Link to comment

Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

The key word here being "personally." No need to comment on, or even notice, someone else's logging decisions.

It wasn't NYPC's logging decision I was commenting on; it was his hypocrisy. But I've already explained that three times.

You haven't explained how it could possibly be hypocrisy. There are two different scenarios, he made two different decisions.

 

In neither case is he asking or expecting anybody else to make the same decisions. That's the crucial element in hypocrisy - expecting people to do one thing, but not living up to that standard yourself. That is not what is happening here.

As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.

 

Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

 

Hypocrisy - "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

 

Hypocrisy - "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

 

NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.

 

But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.

 

Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.

 

And all four times you've conveniently ignored the differences in both scenarios. One was where he visited ground zero, and the other was in another country that he did not step foot in. You appear to be fixated on labeling and judging someone by highlighting the similarities and ignoring the differences.

Link to comment

As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.

 

Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

 

Hypocrisy - "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

 

Hypocrisy - "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

 

NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.

 

But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.

 

Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.

None of your cherry-picked, incomplete web dictionary definitions apply here.

Cherry-picked? Good grief. I used the first three definitions of "hypocrisy" that appeared when I entered "definition: hypocrisy" into Google.

 

Incomplete? Are you kidding? I quoted the entire first definition from each of those online dictionaries and even provided links so you could verify them.

Link to comment

And all four times you've conveniently ignored the differences in both scenarios. One was where he visited ground zero, and the other was in another country that he did not step foot in. You appear to be fixated on labeling and judging someone by highlighting the similarities and ignoring the differences.

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

Link to comment

As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.

 

Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."

 

Hypocrisy - "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

 

Hypocrisy - "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

 

NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.

 

But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.

 

Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.

None of your cherry-picked, incomplete web dictionary definitions apply here.

Cherry-picked? Good grief. I used the first three definitions of "hypocrisy" that appeared when I entered "definition: hypocrisy" into Google.

 

Incomplete? Are you kidding? I quoted the entire first definition from each of those online dictionaries and even provided links so you could verify them.

 

... and all of the definitions you picked are related to moral beliefs / virtuous character, which is entirely irrelevant here. We are talking about functional decision-making in a game. Two game scenarios, two personal decisions, and no reason to attack someone for making a decision that differs from your own.

Link to comment

And all four times you've conveniently ignored the differences in both scenarios. One was where he visited ground zero, and the other was in another country that he did not step foot in. You appear to be fixated on labeling and judging someone by highlighting the similarities and ignoring the differences.

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

 

My question is why is it apparently moral/virtuous to comb through someone else's finds and call them a hypocrite for no reason, but it isn't moral/virtuous to log a geocache?

Link to comment

And all four times you've conveniently ignored the differences in both scenarios. One was where he visited ground zero, and the other was in another country that he did not step foot in. You appear to be fixated on labeling and judging someone by highlighting the similarities and ignoring the differences.

Bingo!

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

How is being at GZ any more relevant? My guess is that it wouldn't be, unless the cache owner has decided that getting to GZ and experiencing that location is more important than finding his D1 cache that was temporarily missing at the time of the visit. It does seem pretty straightforward to me, and not really worth calling someone out over - on that I'm definitely with narcissa.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

How is being at GZ any more relevant? My guess is that it wouldn't be, unless the cache owner has decided that getting to GZ and experiencing that location is more important than finding his D1 cache that was temporarily missing at the time of the visit.

 

The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

Link to comment

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

How is being at GZ any more relevant? My guess is that it wouldn't be, unless the cache owner has decided that getting to GZ and experiencing that location is more important than finding his D1 cache that was temporarily missing at the time of the visit.

 

The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

 

That doesn't answer it at all. What is the "it" NYPC is talking about?

Link to comment

By definition, there are always differences in two different scenarios. The question is whether the relevant element differs. In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find and the cache owner allowed the find. How is being at ground zero any more relevant than the ambient air temperature for claiming a "find" for a physical cache that you didn't find?

How is being at GZ any more relevant? My guess is that it wouldn't be, unless the cache owner has decided that getting to GZ and experiencing that location is more important than finding his D1 cache that was temporarily missing at the time of the visit.

 

I didn't find the cache so I wouldn't log a "Found It" log. The fact that I could get away with it (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change anything.

That doesn't answer it at all. What is the "it" NYPC is talking about?

Link to comment

NYPC should feel free to correct me on this, but I believe the context of his statement was:

 

"The fact that I could get away with [logging a geocache at a GZ I never visited in a country I haven't been to] (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change [the fact that I only log finds on caches in locations I have actually visited]."

 

Or something like that.

Link to comment

In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find...

...in your opinion.

 

What do you mean, "in your opinion"? There is no gray area here and therefore no opinion to be had. The fact is, caches were not found in either situation.

 

I've dnfed a few caches where a CO later contacted me with an offer to log a find after they checked and found the cache to be missing. Of course i appreciated them trying to be nice but it didn't matter what they offered, the cold hard truth was that i did not find the cache. There's nothing a CO can say or do to change that fact. At the same time, i don't care if someone else takes a CO up on this offer. They still didn't find the cache but it's between them and the CO and doesn't really affect me any.

Link to comment

In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find...

...in your opinion.

What do you mean, "in your opinion"? There is no gray area here and therefore no opinion to be had. The fact is, caches were not found in either situation.

There is no single, universally-accepted definition of a geocaching find. If there were, discussions like the one we're currently having or the 56-page Found It = Didn't Find It wouldn't happen. You have your own definition. CanadianRockies has their own. NYPC has his own. Some parts of those definitions may be in agreement, while others may differ. In the end, though (I'll post it again):

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

If NYPC's definition of a find allows him to accept the CO's offer to log a find when the physical log wasn't signed, why does it matter to anyone else? Frankly, I'm dismayed that NYPC gave into all this unwarranted peer-pressure and deleted that find. It's nobody's business other than his, the COs, and Groundspeak (in the case of guideline-violating behaviour). I'll freely admit that a few of my finds probably don't fit the strict definitions being espoused in this discussion. Which specific ones are none of anyone else's business and any decision to delete them is up to myself, the respective COs, and Groundspeak.

Link to comment

In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find...

...in your opinion.

 

What do you mean, "in your opinion"? There is no gray area here and therefore no opinion to be had. The fact is, caches were not found in either situation.

 

I've dnfed a few caches where a CO later contacted me with an offer to log a find after they checked and found the cache to be missing. Of course i appreciated them trying to be nice but it didn't matter what they offered, the cold hard truth was that i did not find the cache. There's nothing a CO can say or do to change that fact. At the same time, i don't care if someone else takes a CO up on this offer. They still didn't find the cache but it's between them and the CO and doesn't really affect me any.

 

Your personal decision making in these scenarios is valid.

 

NYPC's personal decision making in these scenarios is also valid.

Link to comment

NYPC should feel free to correct me on this, but I believe the context of his statement was:

 

"The fact that I could get away with [logging a geocache at a GZ I never visited in a country I haven't been to] (because the CO wouldn't delete my log) doesn't change [the fact that I only log finds on caches in locations I have actually visited]."

 

Or something like that.

 

Pretty much. Now, where did I put that bag of popcorn.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

 

If NYPC's definition of a find allows him to accept the CO's offer to log a find when the physical log wasn't signed, why does it matter to anyone else? Frankly, I'm dismayed that NYPC gave into all this unwarranted peer-pressure and deleted that find.

 

I didn't delete it due to peer-pressure. It was more to show that the +1 in my find count doesn't matter me, lest I be accused of padding my stats by logging caches that don't meet someone elses definition of a find.

 

When I say my find count doesn't matter to me it not only means that I'm not concerned that it's now 1 less than it was a few days ago, it also means the I"m really not concerned that it's one more than what someone else thinks it should be.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

If NYPC's definition of a find allows him to accept the CO's offer to log a find when the physical log wasn't signed, why does it matter to anyone else? Frankly, I'm dismayed that NYPC gave into all this unwarranted peer-pressure and deleted that find.

I didn't delete it due to peer-pressure. It was more to show that the +1 in my find count doesn't matter me, lest I be accused of padding my stats by logging caches that don't meet someone elses definition of a find.

 

When I say my find count doesn't matter to me it not only means that I'm not concerned that it's now 1 less than it was a few days ago, it also means the I"m really not concerned that it's one more than what someone else thinks it should be.

I'm disappointed you deleted the find as well, I think I (and others) would have enjoyed reading it. But it's your log and you have every right to delete it if you wish.

Link to comment

In both situations, a "find" was claimed when there was no find...

...in your opinion.

What do you mean, "in your opinion"? There is no gray area here and therefore no opinion to be had. The fact is, caches were not found in either situation.

There is no single, universally-accepted definition of a geocaching find. If there were, discussions like the one we're currently having or the 56-page Found It = Didn't Find It wouldn't happen. You have your own definition. CanadianRockies has their own. NYPC has his own. Some parts of those definitions may be in agreement, while others may differ. In the end, though (I'll post it again):

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

If NYPC's definition of a find allows him to accept the CO's offer to log a find when the physical log wasn't signed, why does it matter to anyone else? Frankly, I'm dismayed that NYPC gave into all this unwarranted peer-pressure and deleted that find. It's nobody's business other than his, the COs, and Groundspeak (in the case of guideline-violating behaviour). I'll freely admit that a few of my finds probably don't fit the strict definitions being espoused in this discussion. Which specific ones are none of anyone else's business and any decision to delete them is up to myself, the respective COs, and Groundspeak.

 

I realize that a person can claim a "found it" anytime they want. Whether they physically search and find nothing, log a cache from across the ocean, or log from their armchair,,, the log can stand if the CO is ok with it. Really, i don't care one way or another when others do this.

 

I'm just saying that it doesn't matter what reasoning/justification a person uses or, if a CO gives his blessing,, the reality is that a person didn't find the physical cache in these situations.

 

As far as NYPC's deletion, it could be possible that he simply didn't feel good about the log in the first place. I doubt seriously that peer pressure had a part in it. I don't know of course, just thinking out loud here.

Link to comment

If NYPC's definition of a find allows him to accept the CO's offer to log a find when the physical log wasn't signed, why does it matter to anyone else? Frankly, I'm dismayed that NYPC gave into all this unwarranted peer-pressure and deleted that find.

 

I don't think it is a very big issue whether NYPC logged a find or deleted that log because I believe his logs of this type are most likely less than 1% of his total finds and that really should make it NOT worth arguing about.

 

I also don't understand why anyone would WANT to log a find on a cache they didn't find.

 

It seemed cool at first to offer a find to someone in certain cases but now it seems so odd to me that I ever considered doing that. It was here in the forums many years ago that someone pointed out that an online find is not a reward for good effort. It simply shows that a cache was found and a physical log was signed (traditional container caches).

 

A smiley logged in place of a DNF seems like a rather empty award especially if it were used to turn a state or country red on a stat map.

 

It's nobody's business other than his, the COs, and Groundspeak (in the case of guideline-violating behavior).

 

Yes, yes, that's been said many times over many years but it is a community game we play here and the community has some thoughts on this subject that will get voiced and need to be discussed.

 

A past find-count leading cacher who eventually quit the game once logged seven finds instead of one DNF on a cache in protest of the hide conditions. That it was done while in the race to stay in first lessened the integrity of the protest for me and I thought it was rather lame that they never deleted those finds after the point was made.

Link to comment

The rule is simple, you need to sign the logbook.

 

There are many tiny exceptions, such as placing a new sheet of paper when the original logbook is missing or is damaged.

 

But logging the caches if you weren't there is no-go. It's my opinion. And logging caches in countries you've never visited is an absolute no-go. We had in Poland a geocacher that has made a 'creative' event registered in Belarus, near the border, and the intend was to meet on the Polish side and not cross the border. The reaction of the community was so strong that he have archived the event.

Shouldn't it say you should signed the physical logsheet at the physical location? Someone could take a logsheet home or to an event, have everyone sign it then return it to the container without the other signers being at the cache location. The rule doesn't state that one.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...